High Court · 2009

The petitioner, who was appointed as M.E. School teacher by Annexure-1 o rder dated 2.11.1999, is /aggrieved by the Annexure-4 order dated 15.5.2004 foll owed by Annexure-2 order dated 1.6.2004 dispensing with services of the petition er so as to appoint the Respondent No.4, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C) No .3011/2000. Her writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.6.2001 with a dir ection to the respondents not to appoint any person from outside the list, if th e list annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-’B’ was duly prepared, approve d and was still valid. It was further observed that the petitioner being at Sl. No.7 in order of merit, her case for appointment should be considered strictly in accordance with her position in the merit list. It was also provided that in the process o f appointment, if necessary, the persons appointed from outside the list, shall be thrown out. It was pursuant to the aforesaid order, the impugned orders have been i ssued dispensing with the services of the petitioner. It is the case of the pet itioner that the list, which was produced by Ms Firoz Negar Begum i.e. the pet itioner in WP(C) No.3011/2000), was pertaining to B.T.C. area and the list in wh ich the petitioner figured and that the same was pertaining to non-B.T.C. are a. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about his app ointment and Annexure-1 appointment order reveals that he was appointed against a retirement vacancy. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department was requeste d to obtain records containing the select list in question. It was submitted th at the records were lying with the Vigilance Department of the Government of Ass am. The said records have been obtained by Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. She has produced the Register and some documents. The Register is in respect of appointment of teachers in M.E. Schools against retir ement/expiry/termination/transfer vacancies under Mangaldoi/Udalguri sub-divisio n. In the Register, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No.5 under Kalaig aon Legislative Assembly Constituency mentioning the school as Chamuakhat M.E. S chool. The appointment of the petitioner has also been mentioned against retir ement vacancy. The bunch of documents produced by Ms Chakraborty, learned State counsel contains the writing pad of the particular Member of Legislative Assembl y, in which the name of the candidates, schools and Roll Nos. are indicated unde r the head of (cid:28)Selection List (cid:29). It is not understood as to how such select li st can be considered as select list. The last page of the bunch of documents co ntain a typed paper under the heading - (cid:28)Selected List of Candidates for the Pos ts of Teachers in M.E. Schools under Kalaigaon Constituency. (cid:29) In this piece of p aper, the name of the petitioner appears under Roll No.141 and the name of the school as Chamuakhat M.E. School. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department submits that t he aforesaid documents cannot be said to be the select list as the same do not contain signatures of the members of the selection committee and also do not bea Exercising writ jurisdiction, it is not possible r any seal of the authority. to go into the disputed questions of fact, upon a roving enquiry going into th e records. It is true that the services of the petitioner was dispensed with by the impugned orders dated 15.5.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and dated 1.6.2004 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) without hearing him. However, the sai d orders are stated to have been passed on the basis of the order dated 4.6.20 01 in WP(C) No.3011/2000. The basic question which arises for consideration is as to whether the p etitioner was selected for a non-B.T.C. area, as has been contended for by him and as to whether the selection of the petitioner Smt. Firoz Negar Begum involve d in WP(C) No.3011/2000 pertained to B.T.C. area. The question raised is also as to whether the petitioner was a selected candidate and he was duly appointed as M.E. School teacher in the school. All the above requires scrutiny of the matter afresh by the Secretary t o the Government of Assam in the Education Department, who upon scrutiny of the records obtained by Ms Chakraborty, learned State counsel from the Inspector Ge neral of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption shall pass appropriate order. The r ecords shall be forwarded to the Secretary by Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Cou nsel, Education Department. The records, which are now with Ms Chakraborty, lea rned State counsel shall be handed over to the said Inspector General of Police, who in turn, shall hand over the same to the Secretary to the Government of As sam in the Education (Elementary) Department immediately. Thereafter, the said Secretary shall decide the issue on perusal of the records and if necessary upon hearing the parties. The entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 31st July, 2009. Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the avermen ts made in the additional affidavit filed on 29.1.2009, submits that the person s named in paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit who are similarly situated ha ving been appointed and whose names also appear in the same very select list, in which the name of the petitioner appeared, there cannot be any earthly reason to deprive the petitioner from appointment, which was earlier offered to him. This aspect of the matter shall also be considered by the Secretary while deter mining the issue. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms Chakraborty, learned State c ounsel enabling her to take necessary follow up action. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.